Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JorgeStolfi]

Total trade volume today (Wed Mar/12 00:00-23:59 UTC) on the exchanges that I monitor was ~201 kBTC.  That is 38% more than yesterday's (146 kBTC), but still 62% less than last Wednesday (524).

Volume outside China increased 53% since yesterday (from 19 to 29 kBTC).  Bitstamp (12.7 kBTC) still leads. Bitfinex (7.29) recovered from today's low, but is still third, slightly below BTC-e (7.96).

Volume in China increased 36% (from 127 to 172 kBTC).  OKCoin is still ahead of Huobi (53% versus 45% of China's volume).

China's slice of the total day's volume fell slightly from 87% to 86%.

[1714673331]

1714673331

[1714673331]

1714673331

[1714673331]

1714673331

[1714673331]

1714673331

[chessnut]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

[billyjoeallen]

If it were really true that replacing backhoe operators with shovels would improve employment, then why wouldn't we go further and replace shovels with spoons? The fact is that employers face competition for employees in a free market just as much as job seekers face competition for jobs. Wages are bid down AND up, so what ultimately determines wages is productivity. Backhoe operators are so much more productive than manual ditch diggers that society can afford to pay the manufacturers and servicers of backhoes, manufacturers of the parts , the miners and harvesters of raw materials and the suppliers of fuel substantially more than the unskilled laborers they displace.

I'm sorry, but if you are too stupid or stubborn to upgrade your skills when technology makes them obsolete, it's your problem-not society's.

You cannot convince a starving person to die quietly when society leaves him behind, that he doesn't deserve to live because he is 'not good enough'. shit is going to get ugly under this model. no matter the perceived level of skill a person needs, the vast majority will always be relatively stupid.

and why should we leave them behind, there is more wealth in the world than ever before!

.......unless you want to argue that we need to self propagate. that is a sad truth.

I'm not attempting to convince him to die quietly. I'm attempting to convince him to do something society values enough to keep him alive. There are those that simply don't have that ability and they should be helped, but those who chose not to support themselves are choosing to die and I respect their choice, even if I don't agree with it.

[shmadz]

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

thank you for this.

[JayJuanGee]

insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak.. 

They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel.

Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. 

Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders.

Yes you're probably right. But a centralized bitcoin clone kind of defeats the purpose. Who will mine? JPMorgan? The public? A "trusted" central banker type entity? What if they need to change the rules, will they just hard fork it forcing everyone along? Sounds like a total disaster in the making.

I think that those are the very factors that various centralized clones are going to decide, implement and screw up b/c they are NOT going to want to give up control, and then in the end, their failure to give up control is likely going to cause lack of confidence in investing in them in the long term.  We will have to see how these imitators play out, but I would venture to bet that they are going to screw up in adequately answering the questions that you outlined.  Accordingly, bitcoin or anything that is decentralized like bitcoin is going to inspire the most confidence from future investors.

[billyjoeallen]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

[chessnut]

If it were really true that replacing backhoe operators with shovels would improve employment, then why wouldn't we go further and replace shovels with spoons? The fact is that employers face competition for employees in a free market just as much as job seekers face competition for jobs. Wages are bid down AND up, so what ultimately determines wages is productivity. Backhoe operators are so much more productive than manual ditch diggers that society can afford to pay the manufacturers and servicers of backhoes, manufacturers of the parts , the miners and harvesters of raw materials and the suppliers of fuel substantially more than the unskilled laborers they displace.

I'm sorry, but if you are too stupid or stubborn to upgrade your skills when technology makes them obsolete, it's your problem-not society's.

You cannot convince a starving person to die quietly when society leaves him behind, that he doesn't deserve to live because he is 'not good enough'. shit is going to get ugly under this model. no matter the perceived level of skill a person needs, the vast majority will always be relatively stupid.

and why should we leave them behind, there is more wealth in the world than ever before!

.......unless you want to argue that we need to self propagate. that is a sad truth.

I'm not attempting to convince him to die quietly. I'm attempting to convince him to do something society values enough to keep him alive. There are those that simply don't have that ability and they should be helped, but those who chose not to support themselves are choosing to die and I respect their choice, even if I don't agree with it.

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

[chessnut]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

[Wary]

But there is obviously a problem, this is that the income that a robot generates does not go to the poor guy it replaced, it goes all to his boss.

Originally, yes. Then, since the robots give better margin, all his competitors will start using them too. The competition will drive prices down till the margin return to the old one. So, the rewards go to the the boss for a short time only, from the moment of innovation to the moment when competitors catch up. After this moment all rewards go to the consumers, in the form of reduced prices. So the major and permanent beneficiary of the technical progress is the society in a whole, including the poor replaced guys. (Yes, provided they will find new job. But during the last 200 years productivity went up several orders of magnitude. If a replaced guy can't usually find a job, 99% of people would be unemployed by now. Which is not happening. Therefore he usually can).

[billyjoeallen]

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

thank you for this.

Thank Kurt Vonnegut.  All I did was copy and paste.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Wary]

Bitstamp is pushing up and up, but Bitfinex doesn't want to follow. Strange.

Please, don't pollute the thread with off-topic.  

[billyjoeallen]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person.

[chessnut]

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

thank you for this.

Thank Kurt Vonnegut.  All I did was copy and paste.

TERA, can I ask, if you are happy to accept inequality (which to a large degree we all must be) then why are you complaining about the current system? everything is going just dandy right? in your favour?

all that can be said, nothing is perfect. if you want to live you have to fight just like always, you win you lose.

[aminorex]

A natural monopoly is anything which is much less efficiently done by competing interests.  Building and operating a dam on the Colorado River would be a fair example.  Tje use of the term "natural monopoly" is reasonably justified, and descriptive, in such a case.  If an ideology were to cripple my ability to understand or deal reasonably with such simple facts, I would adapt my ideology.

I do think enterprise sizes tend to follow a Zipf distribution.  When an enterprise reaches a certain size while its competitors are much smaller, it enjoys efficiencies of scale which  they cannot then achieve, because their margins are tighter and some resources are less available.  That's not a perfect monopoly, but it is a practical monopoly when adequate capital formation to create a viable competitor is no longer feasible.  During the gilded age, various titans of industry achieved levels of power and wealth which are difficult to parallel.  Carnegie in steel, Rockefeller in oil, Morgan in banking.  The wealth disparity was severe enough to result in revolutionary movements, and resulted in much violence.  Many would argue that the violence of the labor side was self-defense against the greed of the titans which commanded the resources which could have fed their malnourished children, provided adequate medical care to save their lives, and provided human standards of workplace operation, which saved them from maiming.  One democratic action taken to remedy the gross social ills which resulted was the Sherman Anti-trust Act.  Laws were enacted to protect the right to collectively bargain, laws which managed labor relations in order to prevent continued violence.  Today multinational corporations have achieved similar or greater scale, but manage the social costs more wisely, so as to avoid retributive interference by the state.  The social contract is focussed on the grand bargain whereby social welfare is provided to the rabble, who are kept lazy and stupid, fat and happy, while productive classes enjoy peace and quiet within which to pursue their competition for the remainder of the gross product.

These are bargains reached by social groups in the context of prevailing institutions.  They are bargains which are not made by individuals consciously or intentionally, for the most part, although they are created as a result of the decisions made by individuals.  They are bargains enforced by institutions which compel individuals to comply with their terms.

In pragmatic terms, I don't think it is immediately feasible to abolish all such impositions of groups and institutions on individuals.  Nor can I make an honest case that they should be abolished or reorganized.

In moral terms, I regard human freedom as the highest value, and think no one should be compelled to perform according to an agreement to which they are not party.

The only way to reconcile these conditions harmoniously is to exit the domain in which an insufferable compulsion is enforced.

Anyone who attempts to remove my option to exit an insufferable condition is doing gross violence upon me, and I will respond in kind as necessary.

To avoid such necessities, I will take all reasonable and prudent steps in my power to protect and secure my option to exit.

[chessnut]

Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person.

work is energy.

technology is supposed to save a persons energy, nobody is that concerned about efficiency these days at the rate we burn coal.

I dont do fallacies. let us not ad hominem now.

[aminorex]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Brilliant point.  Very reality based.

[billyjoeallen]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Killing and stealing only works until the productive people stop producing, and then everybody starves. The productive people started leaving South Africa in droves when the anti-capitalist Nelson Mendela took over. There's no place on earth with more natural resources per acre than South Africa. If people are starving there, then it's because the government killers and thieves created an environment hostile to peaceful trade.

 

[aminorex]

Perfect equality of opportunity can never exist, but it is very much in everyone's interest to seek to achieve a condition in which most gross inequities are removed, where possible, because this means fewer people want to cut your throat badly enough to actually do something about it.

[Wary]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Brilliant point.  Very reality based.

Not really. Market, by definition, is based on voluntary exchange. If you broad it's definition to include involuntary exchanges, it will include all human activity and therefore will lose any useful meaning. What you can say about "thing" if everything is a "thing"?